AG_57.04.14_SADEGHI_finalonline:Layout 6 ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 57, 4, 2014, A0430; doi:10.4401/ag-6407 A0430 Determining precipitable water in the atmosphere of Iran based on GPS zenith tropospheric delays Elaheh Sadeghi*, Masoud Mashhadi-Hossainali, Hossein Etemadfard K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, Tehran, Iran ABSTRACT Precipitable water (PW) is considered as one of the most important weather parameters in meteorology. Moreover, moisture affects the prop- agation of the Global Positioning System’s (GPS) signals. Using four dif- ferent models, the current paper tries to identify the best relationship between the atmospheric error known as zenith wet delay (ZWD) and PW. For that matter, based on 54,330 radiosonde profiles from 11 stations, two different models i.e. linear and quadratic have been derived for Iran. For analyzing the accuracy of these models, ZWDs of three permanent GPS stations located in the cities of Tehran, Ahvaz and Tabriz have been used. Applying the aforementioned models as well as those already devel- oped for Europe and the U.S., PWs are derived at the position of these stations in Iran. Further, in this research, root mean square error (RMSE) and bias are the measures for selecting the optimal model. Here, the bias and the RMSE (between GPS and radiosonde derived PWs) for the pro- posed linear model for Iran is 1.44 mm and 4.42 mm, and for quadratic model 2.18 mm and 4.74 mm respectively while, the bias and the RMSE for Bevis’ linear model is 2.63 mm and 4.98 mm and for Emardson and Derk’s quadratic models are 2.80 mm and 5.08 mm respectively. As such, it is observed that the bias of the proposed linear model for Iran is 1.19 mm and 1.36 mm less than the Bevis’ and Emardson and Derk’s models. In addition, the RMSE of the proposed linear model is 0.56 and 0.66 mm less than the RMSE of the later ones. This emphasizes that the estima- tion of the model coefficients must be based on regional meteorological measurements. 1. Introduction Water vapor plays an important role in atmos- pheric processes. This parameters is one of the most variable components of the Earth’s atmosphere. Its non-uniform distribution, which is due to the atmos- pheric phenomena above the Earth surface, depends both on space and time. Due to the limited spatial and temporal coverage of observations, estimates of water vapor are always shown with some uncertainties [Emardson et al. 1998, Jarlemark et al. 1998]. Being a key element in various atmospheric phe- nomena such as precipitation, the amount of water vapor is estimated by applying integrated water vapor (IWV) and precipitable water (PW). In other words, IWV signifies the amount of water vapor at a specif ic direction and the PW is the height of the equivalent column of the liquid water represented by , where tw is the liquid water density [Bevis et al. 1992]. The PW is used as one of the inputs for the numer- ical weather prediction models [Vedel and Huang 2003] as well as the pattern analysis and forecast of rain which is considered as the most important and fundamental hy- drological cycle [Seco et al. 2012]. In addition, the PW is also a useful tool for determining the trends in climate change [Bevis et al. 1992]. The existing restriction in the water vapor analysis is a major source of error in short- term (0-24 hours) forecasts of precipitation [Bevis et al. 1992]. A linear power structure has been reported for the time variation of the PW [Hogg et al. 1981, Jarlemark et al. 1998]. The spatial structure of the PW analyzed by Emardson et al. [1998] demonstrated the significance of local models in estimating the precipitable water. The ground-based GPS stations have improved both spatial and temporal resolutions of measure- ments required for estimating the water vapor [Rocken et al. 1991]. For this purpose, the propaga- tion delay experienced by GPS signals in their transi- tion through troposphere is used. In other words, the delay in this part of the atmosphere is partially con- trolled by the existing gaseous water. Askne and Nordius [1987] highlighted the required linear rela- tion between the wet part of tropospheric delay and the PW. Over a decade later, Emardson et al. [1998] revised this ratio for the Scandinavian region. Fol- lowing years, the same technique was also applied for estimating the PW in near real time [Karabatic et al. 2011]. Due to their reasonable accuracy, the PWs PW IWV wt= Article history Received September 16, 2013; accepted May 19, 2014. Subject classification: Precipitable water, Zenith wet delay, Radiosonde profiles, GPS, Modeling. were computed using GPS in rain pattern analysis and forecast models [Seco et al. 2012]. Taking into account the ZWDs, the current re- search primarily intends to assess the necessity and generate a local (conversion) model for the accurate estimation of the PW in Iran. Since radiosondes are expendable instruments, their high cost often restrict the number of launches (normally once to twice a day at 00,00 and 12,00 in UTC) at each station. It must be remembered that Iran possesses more than 107 permanent GPS stations hence; the possibility of computing the PW from ZWDs provides a unique opportunity for improving both spatial and temporal resolutions required for estimating the PW in this country. The paper analyzes the validity of the exist- ing models for estimating the PW parameter through ZWDs in Iran. The next section discusses the conversion models which have already been published in other parts of the world. The paper highlights the development process of these models as well as the PW computa- tion through ZWDs. The third section introduces the most appropriate model to the climatic conditions of Iran. For this purpose, the PWs estimated through different conversion models are compared with the precipitable water directly extracted from the ra- diosonde data. The most appropriate model is then selected using the RMSE and the bias of GPS and ra- diosonde derived PWs. 2. Estimating precipitable water from zenith wet delays The ZWD of the GPS tropospheric signals is due existing gaseous waters in the atmosphere. Taking Π as the required model for converting the ZWD to the PW, one can write: PW = ZWD/Π. To estimate ZWD, a slant tropospheric delay (STD) is computed along the prop- agation path of the GPS signals. This parameter is the signal delay between a satellite transmitting the signal and a ground station. When the STD is mapped from the line of sight to the zenith direction, it is called zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD). The ZTD is comprised of hydrostatic and wet components. The ZHD is modeled using temperature and pressure at the observing site. The ZWD is computed as the difference between the observed ZTD and the ZHD [Jin and Luo 2009]: (1) Various models are available for computing the ZHD [Hopfield 1969, Saastamoinen 1972, Goad and Goodman 1974]. For example, according to Saasta- moinen [1972]: (2) where P0, H0 and { are the surface pressure in hPa, or- thometric height of the station in meters and the lati- tude of the observing site respectively. When no pressure and temperature sensors are available at the GPS station, the data can be extrapo- lated from the nearest meteorological site. As the ver- tical temperature gradient is used to transfer the temperature, Equation (3) can be used to transfer the pressure [Karabatic et al. 2011]: where Psyn, Tsyn, hsyn, are the pressure, temperature and height at meteorological station respectively. Pa- rameter c is the temperature gradient and R is the gas constant. Since, the zenith tropospheric delay is normally estimated through analyzing the GPS measurements, a time series of ZWD can be computed at each per- manent GPS station. Using the ZWD estimates as well as the conversion model, the PW amount can be calculated independently from the radiosonde data profiles. As the PW depends on the temporal and spatial vari- ations of the atmosphere, the conversion model Π is also not a constant parameter. Moreover, the best estimate for this parameter is obtained when the climate condition is taken into account [Emardson and Derks 2000]. To compute PW from ZWD, there are various ex- isting models which are classified into two groups of linear and quadratic here. The following subsections in- troduce these models in further detail. 2.1. Linear model The ratio between the ZWD and the PW param- eters [Bevis et al. 1992] is as followed: Here, Rv is the specific gas constant of water vapor, that is 461.45 JKg−1K−1, and the atmospheric re- fractivity constants k3 and are approximately 3.7×105 K2mbar−1 and 17 Kmbar−1 respectively. Tm is the weighted average of the atmospheric temperature. The value of Tm is calculated using Equation (5). Therefore, computation of this parameter at each point requires water vapor pressure and temperature along a vertical profile: ZWD ZTD ZHD= - 0.002277 . .cos ZHD mhPa H P 1 0 0026 2 0 00000028 1 0 0 # # { = - - -^ h6 @ P P T T h h syn syn syn syn R g c = - - c^ he o 10PW ZWD R k T kv m 6 3 2= = + - l^ h6 @ k2l SADEGHI ET AL. 2 (3) (4) 3 In the equation above, T is the temperature in Kelvin, z is the vertical coordinate and ew is the water vapor pressure. Further, this parameter is obtained using the following equation [Holton 2004]: Where Lv is the latent heat of vaporization and is equal to 2.5×106 JKg−1 and Td is the dew point temper- ature. To calculate the distance between any two con- secutive recorded levels, after taking logarithm of the equation proposed in [Nafisi et al. 2012] can be used: Here Pi is the pressure on level i in hPa, Rd is the gas constant for dry air and is equal to 287.05 JKg−1K−1, local gravity g is a function of latitude and height of the station and is the mean virtual temperature (Tv) be- tween the two consecutive levels. The virtual temper- ature is defined as the one that a hypothetical system of dry air would have, in relation to the actual condition of (moist) air at the same density and pressure. This pa- rameter is expressed as [Wallace and Hobbs 2006]: where Mv and Md are the molecular mass of water vapor and dry air respectively. Their ratio is defined as follows [Andrews 2010]: Tm can be estimated as a linear function of the tem- perature at 2 meters high above the Earth surface (Ts) [Bevis et al. 1992]: Analyzing more than 8000 vertical profiles of ra- diosonde stations in order to compute the unknown coefficients ai, i = 0,1 in the United States, Bevis et al. proposed the following functional relation between Tm and Ts: 2.2. Quadratic model According to Bevis et al. [1992], the conversion model Π and the temperature behave similar to the pa- rameter Tm with respect to time. Based on the same, Emardson and Derks [2000] later proposed the follow- ing functional relation between the conversion model Π and the difference of surface and mean surface tem- peratures: Where TΔ is the surface temperature minus the mean surface temperature The mean surface temperature is computed by averaging the tem- perature obtained from radiosonde profiles. Further, the ZWD and PW estimates are required for comput- ing the unknown coefficients ai,i = 0,1,2. Based on that as well as using 120,000 radiosonde profiles in Europe, Emardson and Derks [2000] proposed the following functional relation [Emardson and Derks 2000]: To compute the zenith wet delay from the ra- diosonde profiles, one has [Rocken et al. 1995]: Here, this integral is computed from the surface (position of the station) to the upper troposphere where T and ew are derived from radiosonde profiles. Practi- cally, since these parameters are not available in con- tinuous form, the discrete form of the integral is used: In Equation (15), n is the number of levels in a ra- diosonde profile. Rocken et al. [1995], computed the PW using the following equation: Where tw is the density of liquid water. This inte- gral is also computed from the surface (position of sta- tion) to the upper most tropospheric layer in the zenith direction. And for a similar aforementioned reason, the discrete form of this equation was used [Hagemann et al. 2003]: The PW, for each profile, can be calculated using the temperature and water vapor pressure derived from the radiosonde profiles. Then, the PW and ZWD for T T e dz T e dz m w w 2 = # # . .expe T R L T6 11 273 15 1 1 w d v v d = -^ h ; E` j lnz z g R T P P i i d v i i 1 1 - =+ + c cm m Tv T P M M TP e1 v d v w = - -c m .M M R R 0 62197 d v v d = = T a a Tm s0 1= + . .T T70 2 0 72m s= + a a T a T0 1 2 2= + +O O .T T T T= -O^ h 6.458 1.7 10 2.2T T102 25# #= - -O O - - 10ZWD k T k T e z Z Z w 6 2 3 2 ground top d= +- l^ h# 10 2ZWD T T k T T k e e z z 2 2 i n i i i i w i w i i i 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 = + + + + + - - = - + + + + l ^ ^ h h = =G Ge o / PW R T e dz1 w v w t = # PW R T T e e z z1 w v i i w i w i i n i i 1 1 1 1 1t = + + - + + = - +< > /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.08250 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /ENU (Use these settings to create PDF documents with higher image resolution for high quality pre-press printing. The PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Reader 5.0 and later. These settings require font embedding.) /JPN /FRA /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /NOR /SVE /KOR /CHS /CHT /ITA >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [595.000 842.000] >> setpagedevice